An ecology of mind

[Carl-Richard]

I've talked about Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory a couple of times before, and it's by all means a great model. It's a so-called "contextual developmental theory", as it tries to explain psychological development by categorizing the contextual domains (e.g. social environments) that exist outside the individual:

 

When most of you hear the word "developmental psychology", you most likely think about Spiral Dynamics or the 9 Stages of Ego Development (so-called "structural stage theories"), which are concerned with categorizing the temporal dimension of development, within the individual(s).

Bronfenbrenner deals mostly with the interobjective domain (using Ken Wilber's Four Quadrants model), like social systems, but also some of the intersubjective domain (culture etc.). It's therefore a type of sociological ecology (how individuals interact with different parts of society). On the other hand, structural stage models tend to be more focused on the subjective and intersubjective domain (mind, cognition, beliefs, values etc.).

 

 

This made me think of an idea: what would an "ecology of mind" look like? In other words, instead of modelling the relationships between different structures of society, what about modelling the relationships between different structures of mind?

Now, what do I mean by structures of mind? Well, a good measurement of that would be everything that falls under the subjective or intersubjective dimensions in Wilber's 4 quadrants. We only need to find some suitable categories. Here is an example of what that could look like:

The model works very similarly to Bronfenbrenner's model, but instead of thinking of the circles as directness of influence on the individual, it's rather about how fundamental they are to the structure of the mind. For example, perception and cognition is more fundamental and give rise to philosophy and religion, just like these things give rise to morality, which gives rise to politics etc.

Maybe the premise is futile and there is too much overlap between each domain, but it's nevertheless an interesting concept. If it's done accurately, it can be used as a road map for understanding the mind and predicting behavior (and as a springboard for psychological research). Please share which main categories (the ones in bold letter) you think should be on there!  

[BipolarGrowth]

There are countless models which are better to look at

[Danioover9000]

@BipolarGrowth

1 minute ago, BipolarGrowth said:

There are countless models which are better to look at

   Yes, there are a ton of beautiful models to look at.

[thisintegrated]

49 minutes ago, BipolarGrowth said:

There are countless models which are better to look at

Agreed.  This one has got to be the most useless one I've come across in a while.  Though, it is correct, can't really fault it.  It's just too ambitious, too reliant on examples, too messy, and clearly not designed with any actual purpose in mind.  

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Agreed.  This one has got to be the most useless one I've come across in a while.  Though, it is correct, can't really fault it.  It's just too ambitious, too reliant on examples, too messy, and clearly not designed with any actual purpose in mind.  

If the model was accurate, you could for example look at a persons political ideology and predict their moral system, their philosophical/religious stances and levels of cognition, in that order (again, given that these are accurate categories).

You could say that you can get a low resolution indication of these relationships by looking at one stage of Spiral Dynamics, but this is about mapping out the actual structure of them. SD is more preoccupied with mapping the temporal dimension of development. An ecology of mind is more like a psychodynamic model (like Freud's id/ego/superego).

If you think the model has problems, how do they differ from Bronfenbrenner's model?

[thisintegrated]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If the model was accurate, you could for example look at a persons political ideology and predict their moral system, their philosophical/religious stances and levels of cognition, in that order (again, given that these are accurate categories).

Like I said, too ambitious.  Far too many variables to take into account here.  If I'm politically in the centre, what can you determine about my beliefs and morals?

Be careful not to assume "left = selfless, right = selfish" or anything like that.  There's no simple algorithm to determine what brings someone to a certain political stance.

[Carl-Richard]

18 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Like I said, too ambitious.  Far too many variables to take into account here.  If I'm politically in the centre, what can you determine about my beliefs and morals?

Be careful not to assume "left = selfless, right = selfish" or anything like that.  There's no simple algorithm to determine what brings someone to a certain political stance.

I mean, yes. That is why we need better categories  

[BipolarGrowth]

3 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Agreed.  This one has got to be the most useless one I've come across in a while.  Though, it is correct, can't really fault it.  It's just too ambitious, too reliant on examples, too messy, and clearly not designed with any actual purpose in mind.  

I mostly said this because I prefer slim blonde models, generally speaking. 

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, BipolarGrowth said:

I mostly said this because I prefer slim blonde models, generally speaking. 

Knew it